MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molding Helmet Therapy in the Management of Sagittal Synostosis

2002· article· en· W2086014684 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Craniofacial Surgery · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPediatric Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCraniosynostosisSurgerySagittal planeSagittal sutureSynostosisConfidence intervalFibrous jointRetrospective cohort studyAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current surgical treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis often fails to produce a normal cephalic index; however, recent reports of early endoscopic suture release and postoperative helmet therapy promise improved cranial symmetry. The role of helmet therapy is critical in this approach, but there are few reports on the use of helmet therapy after craniosynostosis surgery. The authors present a retrospective review comparing the results of surgery alone versus surgery and postoperative banding in treating children diagnosed with sagittal synostosis. Cephalic index (CI) measurements and the divergence of the CI from the norm (DFN) were used to compare the banded and the non-banded groups. Included in the study were 21 children with sagittal craniosynostosis of whom 6 were treated with surgery alone and 15 were treated with surgery and postoperative banding. Preoperatively, both groups were significantly different from the norm (non-banded, P < 0.05; banded, P < 0.01), while postoperatively they were not significantly different from the norm. Statistically significant changes were present in the CIs of the banded group in the preoperative-follow-up interval (P < 0.01), while no significant changes occurred in the non-banded group during this same interval. Statistically significant changes in the DFN occurred in the preoperative-postoperative and preoperative-follow-up intervals of the banded group; however, these changes were not significant in the non-banded group during the same intervals. Correction toward a normal CI was seen in the banded group throughout the course of treatment, while this trend was not present in the non-banded group. Therefore, molding helmet therapy maintains the operative correction obtained and promotes more normal cranial growth patterns.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it